Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 25 March, 2022
CRM-M-46737-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-46737-
46737-2021
Date of Decision: March 25, 2022
Gurpreet Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK PURI
***
Present: Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Sr.DAG, Punjab
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate,
for respondent no.2.
(The case has been taken up through video
conferencing on account of Covid-19
Pandemic).
-.-
Vivek Puri,
Puri, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court
by way of instant petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
('Cr.P.C.') invoking its inherent jurisdiction
for quashing of F.I.R. No. 23 dated 11.02.2018,
registered under Sections 354, 354-B of the
Indian Penal Code, IPC at Police Station City
1 of 8
Moga, District Moga along with all consequential
proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated
02.09.2021 (Annexure P-3).
Precisely, the case has been registered
on the allegations that on 09.02.2018 at about
4.30 P.M., the respondent no.2 was sitting in a
bus of Roadways of Barnala Depot from Bus Stand
Moga for proceeding towards her village. There
was no other passenger in the bus at that time.
The petitioner was working as a conductor on the
bus and he outraged modesty of the respondent
no.2. Consequently, the aforesaid FIR was
registered.
The petitioner was convicted under
Sections 354 and 354-B of the Indian Penal Code
in terms of the judgment dated 09.08.2021 and and
sentenced as following:-
Offence Sentence Fine
Sentence in
default of
payment of
fine
354 IPC Rigorous Rs. To further
imprisonment 500/- undergo
for one year rigorous
imprisonment
for one
month.
354-B Rigorous Rs. To further
IPC imprisonment 1000/- undergo
for three rigorous
years. imprisonment
for two
months.
2 of 8
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner
has preferred a criminal appeal which is now
pending in the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Moga.
On 14.12.2021, notice of motion was
issued and the private parties were directed to
appear before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Moga where the appeal is pending for
recording their statements with regard to
compromise/settlement and it was further directed
that after recording their statements, the
learned Appellate Court shall send the following
information:-
"1. Number of persons arrayed as accused
in FIR;
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed
offender;
3. Whether the compromise is genuine,
voluntary and without any coercion
or undue influence;
4. Whether the accused persons are
involved in any other case or not;
5. The Appellate Court is also directed
to record the statement of the
Investigating Officer as to how many
victims/complainants are there in
the FIR."
3 of 8
In compliance of the order dated
14.12.2021, both the parties have appeared before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga and
got their statements recorded. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Moga after recording
the statements of the parties, has sent the
report dated 04.02.2022 and the relevant portion
thereof is reproduced herein below:-
"It is further respectfully submitted
that:-
1) As per judicial file, one person
namely Gurpreet Singh is arrayed as
accused in the aforesaid FIR,
2) As per statement of Investigating
Officer ASI Raj Kaur, accused has not
been declared as proclaimed offender
in the present case,
3) In the light of statements
suffered by both the parties, this
court seems that compromise effected
between the parties is genuine and
free from any kind of threat, coercion
and undue pressure etc.
4) No other case except the present
case is pending accused accused,
5) As per statement of Investigating
Officer ASI Raj Kaur, there is only
one complainant/victim in the present
FIR."
After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and going through record of the case,
4 of 8
this Court is of the considered opinion that it
is a fit case for exercising the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to secure
the ends of justice because the parties have
arrived at an out of the Court settlement by way
of compromise (Annexure P-3). The compromise is
genuine one and has been voluntarily executed by
the parties without any pressure or undue
influence.
For the aforesaid view, this Court finds
support from Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State
of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal)
1052,
1052 upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303
and Narinder
Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab
and another 2014(6)SCC 466.
In the decision rendered in Sube Singh
and another Vs. State of Haryana and another,
2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, the Division
Bench of this Court has laid down as following:-
"17. The magnitude of inherent
jurisdiction exercisable by the High
Court under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code with a view to
prevent the abuse of law or to
secure the ends of justice, however,
5 of 8
is wide enough to include its power
to quash the proceedings in relation
to not only the non-compoundable
offences notwithstanding the bar
under Section 320 Criminal Procedure
Code but such a power, in our
considered view, is exercisable at
any stage save that there is no
express bar and invoking of such
power is fully justified on facts
and circumstances of the case."
Furthermore, in the recent decision
rendered in Ramgopal and another Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, it has
been held by the Supreme Court that non
compoundable criminal cases of pre-dominantly
private nature can be quashed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. even if compromise is reached after
conviction.
It may be mentioned here that in the
normal course of events, this Court may not have
been inclined to quash the FIR in case of non-
compoundable offence involving the crime which is
heinous and serious in nature. However, in the
case in hand, the matter has been amicably
settled between the parties with the intervention
of respectables and relatives. In such
circumstances, the compromise will go a long way
6 of 8
in maintaining cordial and harmonious relations
between the parties.
Considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case noted above, coupled
with the reasons aforementioned and to secure the
ends of justice, F.I.R. No. 23 dated 11.02.2018,
registered under Sections 354 and 354-B of the
Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City Moga,
District Moga along with all consequential
proceedings, on the basis of compromise dated
02.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) effected between the
parties, is ordered to be quashed, as well as,
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga are set
aside. The petitioner is acquitted and fine, if
any, deposited be refunded. Furthermore, the
appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 09.08.2021 would be rendered infructuous
and shall be so declared by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge where the appeal is
pending.
7 of 8
Resultantly, with the above-said
observations made, the instant petition stands
allowed.
March 25, 2022 (VIVEK PURI)
vkd JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
